The Truth Behind the CBP One App: Restrictive Immigration Policies are Causing Migrant Deaths
The recent presidential election saw immigration policies become a heated topic of debate, with false and racist rhetoric being used to generate hostility toward migrants. One of the topics under debate is the CBP One app, an app expanded during the Biden administration to limit the methods of applying for asylum at ports of entry. Trump recently referred to the app as, “the Kamala phone app for smuggling illegals” and Vance [falsely] explained, “you can go on as an illegal migrant, apply for asylum and parole, and be granted legal status at the wave of a Kamala Harris open border wand.” This couldn’t be further from the reality of how this app operates.
The CBP One app, originally introduced under the Trump administration, was expanded under the Biden administration to allow asylum-seekers to request an appointment with Customs and Border Patrol officers to streamline the process at ports of entry. The app does not, however, grant legal status. Although it was initially voluntary, an appointment through the CBP One app is now the only way asylum-seekers arriving at the southern border can enter the United States. There are a limited number of appointments available each day, and the wait times have increased dramatically, now averaging about six to eight months. Additionally, the app only allows for appointments to be scheduled if the app user is in certain regions of Mexico, meaning the user must already be in Mexico and on their way to the border before they can schedule an appointment.
The app forces those seeking entry to wait near the border for months in dangerous conditions, where they are at increased risk of gender-based violence, extortion, and kidnapping. In cooperation with the U.S. government, Mexican authorities have been detaining migrants on their side of the border and bussing them south of Mexico City, where they may not be able to access the app. Because those who attempt to enter the U.S. without an appointment are turned away, asylum seekers are then forced to once again make the trek north, putting their lives at risk. The app has effectively blocked thousands of people from applying for asylum.
In restricting access to applying for asylum, the policies around this app violate both international and U.S. law. Contrary to popular discourse, in which asylum applicants are often referred to as “illegal immigrants,” applying for asylum is legal in the U.S. and under international law. U.S. law allows people to present themselves at a port of entry and apply for asylum. The 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol prohibit countries from returning migrants to a country where they have a well-founded fear of persecution. The U.S. incorporated these international standards into its own domestic framework through the 1980 Refugee Act, which prevents the U.S. from deporting individuals to such countries. Recognizing that many asylum-seekers are fleeing life-threatening situations, Article 31 of the Refugee Convention prohibits states from penalizing asylum-seekers for entering the country in an irregular manner.
Due to the restrictions on entering through a port of entry, many migrants are resorting to increasingly dangerous routes to cross the border. Not only is the desert crossing dangerous due to the harsh climate and environmental hazards, but it has also become increasingly deadly due to physical barriers placed there by the federal and state governments. In 2023, the International Organization for Migration declared the U.S.-Mexico border the deadliest land crossing in the world, documenting 686 migrant deaths and disappearances in 2022. The real number of deaths is likely much higher, but the difficulty in finding remains in the remote desert, the lack of resources, and under-reporting by government agencies make determining a final number challenging.
During the Trump presidency, additions to the border wall pushed migrants to either take more isolated paths, where they were at higher risk of getting lost and stranded in the desert, or attempt to climb the wall. Injuries and deaths from falling off the border wall have been heavily documented by nonprofit organizations, with one hospital near the border reporting treating over 1,100 patients who fell from the wall. Injuries range from severe leg fractures and broken bones to spinal cord and brain injuries. In 2021 alone, CBP reported 19 deaths from falls off the wall (a number likely much higher, and only accounting for those who fell onto the U.S. side of the border). Additionally, Texas has been placing razor wire, buoys with nets, and other traps and barriers along the Rio Grande in a deadly immigration enforcement operation coined “Operation Lone Star.” Since the start of Operation Lone Star, Texas law enforcement has been engaging in an increased number of high-speed vehicle pursuits, with Human Rights Watch documenting 74 deaths and 189 injuries between March 2021 and July 2023 due to these pursuits. A 2019 LA Times report found that 1 in 3 CBP high-speed pursuits ended in a crash, counting at least 250 injuries and 22 deaths between 2015 and 2018.
The increased number of deaths is a direct result of restrictive immigration policies such as the implementation of the CBP One app. In the name of prevention through deterrence, the U.S. has been passing increasingly restrictive policies that do not effectively limit immigration and instead lead to more migrant deaths and injuries. The restrictions on asylum through the CBP One app and by other means are directly causing migrant deaths: it is inhumane and a violation of domestic and international law. As the nonprofit organization No More Deaths put it, “Narratives implying that the desert has become inherently more deadly are flawed and ignore the primary factor in death and disappearance in the borderlands: a militarized border zone in which a whole category of people is treated as less than human, forced to travel clandestinely and unable to access basic emergency services.”
Kristen Cain is a student in the Boston University Human Rights Clinic and a second-year J.D. candidate at Boston University School of Law.
